Hajali v. Officer Andrew W. Daller, N15C-07-111 EMD

Plaintiff Zohra Hajali (pro se) sued Officer Andrew Daller under §1983 and state tort claims arising from her arrest and detention, alleging fabrication of evidence, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution, and wanton negligence.
The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial; Hajali called six witnesses and testified; Daller called two witnesses and testified.
The jury returned a verdict for Officer Daller, finding no malicious intent, recklessness, wanton negligence, or fabrication by Daller.
Hajali timely moved for a new trial under Superior Court Civil Rule 59, asserting multiple grounds including judicial bias, erroneous evidentiary rulings, opposing counsel misconduct, false testimony, juror misconduct, and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
The motion lacked factual detail or affidavits for most allegations; the only supported factual claim concerned alleged improper contact between a juror and a New Castle County attorney.
The court conducted on-the-record colloquies with the county attorney and the juror, concluded there was no improper contact, found the jury verdict supported by the evidence, and denied the motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial bias or misconduct requires a new trial	Judge was unfair, made biased comments and rulings that favored Daller	Court rulings were within discretion; no specific facts showing bias	Denied — Hajali failed to support bias claims with facts or authority
Whether evidentiary rulings and sustained objections deprived Hajali of a fair trial	Several rulings excluded or limited Hajali's evidence and questions	Rulings were proper and not shown to be reversible; Hajali gave no specifics	Denied — motion did not identify erroneous rulings or prejudice adequately
Whether juror misconduct occurred (contact with County attorney) requiring a new trial	Observed juror having lunch with County Counsel; claimed improper contact	County Counsel and juror denied knowing each other or having lunch; court conducted colloquies	Denied — court found no improper contact after on-the-record inquiry and no exceptions were taken
Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and damages should have been awarded	Evidence conclusively showed injury and causation; jury should have awarded damages	Jury found no tortious conduct; verdict entitled to deference absent passion or disregard of law	Denied — verdict supported by evidence and did not shock the court’s conscience

McCloskey v. McKelvey, 174 A.2d 691 (Del. Super. 1961) (standard for granting a new trial where verdict is against weight of evidence)
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234 (Del. 1997) (trial judge’s deference to jury and assessment of evidence after observing trial)
Stewart v. Genesco, Inc., 406 A.2d 25 (Del. 1979) (trial-court assessment of jury awards)
Maier v. Santucci, 367 A.2d 747 (Del. 1976) (verdict will be set aside only for passion, prejudice, or disregard of evidence or law)
Amalfitano v. Baker, 794 A.2d 575 (Del. 2001) (explaining when a verdict shocks the court’s conscience)
Flamer v. State, 953 A.2d 130 (Del. 2008) (briefing standards: issues unsupported by authority or facts may be waived)